 |
| Hugh Robertson MP, minister |
"I spent some time as a young man in the Army, and there are plenty of cases in which the Government take a decision and expect public servants to carry it out ... What I do know, and what I absolutely believe in personally, is that if the House passes a piece of legislation, there is a duty on public servants to carry it out. That duty is part of a process in a democracy... Registrars are public servants. If a Bill is passed in this House with a very considerable majority, as was the case on Second Reading—I do not know what will happen in future—then registrars, as public servants, are under an obligation to carry out the duties contained in that Bill, plain and simple."My question to Mr Robertson is: How does that make the implementation of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Equality Bill any different from the implementation of the Enabling Act passed by the Reichstag in 1933, which made Hitler dictator of Germany? Both were voted for by a very considerable majority, in a democracy. I would also ask Mr Robertson: What does he suggest that registrars who object to same-sex marriage say to God, their churches, their family and friends, when they are asked: 'Why did you go against your conscience and solemnize same-sex marriages?' Perhaps Mr Robertson would suggest that they adopt the famously-failed 'Nuremberg Defence' - 'I was just obeying orders'? As a former Army officer, Mr Robertson's failure to acknowledge the right to conscientious objection - a well-established concept in regard to military personnel and others - is shocking.
Extracts from the 6th session of the Public Bill Committee of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, 26 February 2013:
Tim Loughton:
"Our law does not state to doctors that they must choose between acting in violation of their conscience by providing an abortion service and losing their livelihood, nor does it say to would-be doctors that those with a conscientious objection to the provision of abortion need not apply. Yet the propagation of such discrimination will be the precise effect of the Bill..."Hugh Robertson:
"It would not be right, in our view, to allow public servants to pick and choose their duties..."Tim Loughton:
"The Minister has just used the phrase “pick and choose”. How is this different from allowing another public servant, a surgeon, to pick and choose whether to perform an abortion?"Hugh Robertson:
"Generally speaking, I believe all these cases are different. There are plenty of issues. I spent some time as a young man in the Army, and there are plenty of cases in which the Government take a decision and expect public servants to carry it out. That is not an unfair principle in any way."Tim Loughton:
"Why is it the principle that a surgeon who has strong Catholic views is allowed to pick and choose whether to perform abortions or other surgery, if the same principle cannot be applied to a Catholic registrar with strong views, allowing them to pick and choose whether to perform that other public service? What is so essentially different that we protect one but not the other?"Hugh Robertson:
"It is because they are different functions; that is the short answer."Tim Loughton:
"That is not an answer."Hugh Robertson:
"Yes, it is. They are different functions. One is an abortion; the other is a same-sex marriage."Tim Loughton:
"Why do we protect religious views on abortion but not the religious views of registrars, when in both cases public servants perform a public function, for which the public pay? They are different, but saying they are different is not a justification for treating them differently."Hugh Robertson:
"It is about whether that is in the Bill; that is the short answer. It is relevant that in the extensive consultation period the national body responsible did not ask for that exemption. I do not know whether that was the case when the Abortion Act 1967 was put on the book, and what representations were made by the professional bodies at that point; but the issue was not raised."Tim Loughton:
"To confirm what the Minister says, the Government are picking and choosing who has an exemption and who does not."Hugh Robertson:
"No. The Government have laid out a very straightforward process in the Bill, which does not provide the exemption that my hon. Friend wants. The Government envisage that if the Bill is passed, registrars as public servants should carry out their functions."David Burrowes:
"To pursue the Minister’s logic about the difference between the two functions, the Government have decided that in relation to the function of registration there will be protection, exemption and respect for the conscientious objection of religious organisations, but that does not include registrars, superintendant registrars or the Registrar General. There is an acceptance by the Government that one cannot distinguish a public function, given that non-Church of England organisations will effectively be licensed to register same-sex marriages. Why, then, do the Government want to distinguish between religious organisations and individual registrars when it comes to protections? They give some protection—but not in the case of a registrar."Hugh Robertson:
"The simple answer is because they perform different functions. ..."At the debate's conclusion, Mr Robertson said:
"I will be very, very clear about this: I do not know what led to the provisions in the Abortion Act 1967 to which my hon. Friend referred. I do not know what the thinking was behind them and I was not part of that debate. What I do know, and what I absolutely believe in personally, is that if the House passes a piece of legislation, there is a duty on public servants to carry it out. That duty is part of a process in a democracy, which is precisely why I would resist new clause 5. Registrars are public servants. If a Bill is passed in this House with a very considerable majority, as was the case on Second Reading—I do not know what will happen in future—then registrars, as public servants, are under an obligation to carry out the duties contained in that Bill, plain and simple."Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacyAny source
No comments:
Post a Comment